Hari Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1604)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4065 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hari Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1604) on 9 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:1604]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
        S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 59/2023

Hari Ram S/o Gomad Ram, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Meghwal
R/o Hatudi Ps Khedapa Dist. Jodhpur Raj.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Pp
2.        Chuna Ram S/o Rawat Ram, B/c Jat R/o Hatundi Ps
          Khedapa Dist. Jodhpur Raj.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Ratna Ram
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore
                                  Mr. Nikhil Bhandari



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Judgment / Order

09/01/2025

This application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2)

Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the

order dated 21.3.2023 passed by learned Special Judge,

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Cases, Jodhpur Metro in Bail Application No.78/2023 "Choona Ram

Vs. State of Rajasthan", whereby the respondent accused has

been granted bail in connection with F.I.R. No.44/2023 registered

at Police Station Khedapa, Jodhpur, for the offences under

Sections 341, 323, 325 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act.

Heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned

Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondent.

Perused the material available on record.

[2025:RJ-JD:1604] (2 of 2) [CRLBC-59/2023]

Hon'ble the Supreme Court, time and again in its judicial

pronouncements, has been laying down certain conditions wherein

bail granted to an accused may be cancelled. These conditions

comprise certain acts and inactions of accused such as (i) the

accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,

(ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to

tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or

indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth

investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another

country, (vi) attempts to make himself scare by going

underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,

(vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.

Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner is not in a

position to satisfy this Court as to whether the respondent-

accused has flouted any of the above-mentioned conditions in the

instant matter.

Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court

prima facie finds that no illegality whatsoever has been committed

by the competent criminal Court while granting bail to the

accused-respondent.

In this view of the matter, there is no reason for this Court to

interfere with the said order.

Consequently, the present application for cancellation of bail

is dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 131-TarunGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)